|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Jan 1 2013, 2:58am
Post #26 of 44
(1008 views)
Shortcut
|
Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
1- Only at the start: Bilbo rummaging in his chest
Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic: The clarity is sensational
Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
2- No: Not once
Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
N/A
Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes: Most certainly. I hope the next two films are as widely available in HFR in spite of many critics' reception...
"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."
|
|
|
Vaire
The Shire
Jan 1 2013, 4:43am
Post #27 of 44
(994 views)
Shortcut
|
Q1 - 1
Just takes 5-10 minutes to get used to it. I saw it a second time in HD a couple of weeks later and did not need any "adjustment time" on the second viewing.
Q2 - 1
Q3 - 2
Q4 - 3
Just because the glasses are uncomfortable, nothing to do with what's on screen.
Q5 - 1
What
I would really like is to see it in 48fps 2D, unfortunately my
local cinema is not showing this combination of formats. I wear glasses
normally, and having to wear those chunky plastic 3D frames over the top
is a pain.
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Jan 1 2013, 5:26am
Post #28 of 44
(988 views)
Shortcut
|
Question One - It didn't look "sped up" at all.
Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic
I would use a word like crisp or sharp actually, but I think this is what you mean by realistic.
Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
2- No
On the contrary, I found it easier to watch than other 3D movies I have seen, or than the 24 FPS 3D version of AUJ, which I had seen previously.
Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this? n/a
Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes
|
|
|
Esmond
The Shire
Jan 1 2013, 7:59pm
Post #29 of 44
(969 views)
Shortcut
|
Q1) 1
Q2) 1
Q3) 2
Q5) 1
|
|
|
totoro
Lorien
Jan 2 2013, 1:16am
Post #30 of 44
(962 views)
Shortcut
|
Q1: 1 (though it wasn't exactly "sped up")
Q2: 3 (soap opera)
Q3: 2 (no)
Q4: n/a
Q5: 1 (yes)
Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
1- Only at the start
2- Untill arounf the end of the dinner sequence
3- Untill about halfway through
4- The whole way through.
Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic
2- Video game
3- Soap opera
4- Sports game
5- Any other
Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
1- Yes
2- No
Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
1- Frequently
2- Only occasionally
3- Once or twice.
Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes
2- No
Thanks guys
|
|
|
Steerpike
Bree
Jan 2 2013, 4:35am
Post #31 of 44
(966 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The movie -> thumbs up..... 48fps -> thumbs down...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
Didn't look sped up at all.
Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
3- Soap opera
Sets looked like sets; outdoor scenes looked like they were shot in my backyard. The whole thing looked cheap and tacky. Instead of drawing me into Middle-earth the high visual fidelity just brought Middle-earth characters into the real world, where they do not belong and just look silly. I saw it a second time in 24fps and absolutely loved it - Middle-earth looked like Middle-earth again.
Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
2- No
Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
N/A
Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
2- No
I'm sure higher frames rates will be a valuable tool for film makers. If they just use them on the fast action shots to smooth out the movement or just for movies set in the real world and the present day then I guess that might work. But for an other-worldly fantasy setting I'm afraid it didn't work for me and just served as a constant reminder of the artifice of the situation.
|
|
|
Owain
Tol Eressea
Jan 2 2013, 5:04am
Post #32 of 44
(956 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Never
2. Realistic
3. No
4. Did NOT have to take them off
5. Yes I will go see the movies in both 24 and 48fps because they provided me different experiences that I really enjoyed.
Middle Earth is New Zealand!
"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jan 2 2013, 1:29pm
Post #33 of 44
(946 views)
Shortcut
|
Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
Never
Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic
Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
2- No
Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
N/A
Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Jan 2 2013, 3:47pm
Post #34 of 44
(939 views)
Shortcut
|
Question One: 1
Question Two: 1
Question Three: 2
Question Four: N/A
Question Five: 1
I really don't understand the negative responses, it was better in every way! Much more comfortable to watch than standard 3D. Even when the logo's came up I whispered to my friend "It looks better already!" and they agreed.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Jan 2 2013, 3:53pm
Post #35 of 44
(946 views)
Shortcut
|
Everyone who doesn't like it seemed to have seen 48fps first... whereas those who saw 24fps first seem to love it!  I honestly cannot fault how it looked at all. Every discernible difference was a benefit. I don't see how the CGI looked any different than in 24fps, either?
Not saying you're wrong, but I think maybe you should give another go? I saw it in a VUE cinema. Maybe the IMAX screenings are different?
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Jan 2 2013, 4:04pm
Post #36 of 44
(948 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Kassandros is testing that theory here
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Everyone who doesn't like it seemed to have seen 48fps first... whereas those who saw 24fps first seem to love it! I honestly cannot fault how it looked at all. Every discernible difference was a benefit. I don't see how the CGI looked any different than in 24fps, either? Not saying you're wrong, but I think maybe you should give another go? I saw it in a VUE cinema. Maybe the IMAX screenings are different?
Link
I loved the clarity of the HFR - especially in the landscape shots. I also appreciated that lack of blur in the HFR version after seeing it in 2D the day after. As a whole though, I do think it cheapens some of the CGI (I have no problems with it looking sped up - that's not an issue.) It makes the CGI look like CGI - it's not seamless (such as Smaug's fire).
I do think that HFR will improve in time though. I saw AUJ in HFR on the opening day, and a couple of days ago (at the same cinema, on the same screen). What I noticed the second time round was that the pictures weren't aligned properly - I don't know how to describe it, but you could see the outline of the picture on the left of the screen. Perhaps my dislike of HFR is down to both personal taste, and the cinema not using/showing it properly?
I did like the HFR a lot more second time round, but the problems still existed. I won't see TDOS and TABA in HFR to start with, but will definitely give it a go. I've not given up on the technology, it just isn't for me.
Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Jan 2 2013, 4:15pm
Post #37 of 44
(947 views)
Shortcut
|
Just voted on that poll, thanks.
My other question, did you see it in an IMAX or something different? Because the VUE (Plymouth) one, honestly, was completely flawless. My girlfriend said at the end "that was the best thing I've ever seen" We'd seen the 24fps version previously. (A day before official release, coz we're cool like that  ) This version was so much more superior that I'm really confused how people can;t like it? My mind boggles.
Only "complaint" I don't think this is really a problem, but there was a sped-up sensation in shots with no reference to speed of movement. (E.G. a close-up of Bilbo's hand grabbing something with nothing else in shot) Because there's no visual reference of how fast his hand is moving, and because we're used to 24fps, your mind assumes it's going really fast. But that's not a problem with the tech, that's a problem with my brain and after a few mins it stopped happening, so I suppose I adjusted pretty quick.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Jan 2 2013, 4:36pm
Post #39 of 44
(973 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Um.. VUE Plymouth has a 4K projector.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I asked and the man said "I have no idea" and got this other guy to talk to me. He told me most UK VUE cinemas have Sony 4K projectors now and all of these are capable of showing 48fps, but only a few are doing it because it's expensive to ship it to all the cinemas. They're planning on doing DOS as a download rather than a hard drive next year, so more cinemas will be showing it.
|
|
|
lyndomiel
Rivendell
Jan 2 2013, 10:00pm
Post #40 of 44
(1279 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Saw it yesterday in RPX - Regal's version of IMAX 3-D w/ Atmos sound
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I loved it - and so did my husband who had not seen it in 2-D first! In fact - I liked the film even better in this format. Unlike what many have said, I thought the early scenes looked far better in 48fps. The best 3-D viewing I have ever experienced. Never had to take off the glasses - no headaches - not too dark. I understand that they used two projectors which created a brighter image. Perhaps it depends upon the type of projection - IMAX vs. RPX, etc.
Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
5. NEVER.
Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
1- Realistic - truly 3 dimensional even when they were not trying to project out to the audience. Gorgeous from the first moment.
Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
2- No - as I said, it was fabulous
Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
1- Frequently
2- Only occasionally
3- Once or twice.
Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
1- Yes - a many times as I can afford at $20 a pop (NYC prices)
|
|
|
pandoraziki
Rivendell
Jan 3 2013, 5:12pm
Post #41 of 44
(928 views)
Shortcut
|
1. 1 - for about 3 seconds
2. 1 - realistic
3. 2 - nope
4. n/a
5. 1 - absolutely
|
|
|
Chainsaw Charlie
Bree
Jan 3 2013, 9:04pm
Post #42 of 44
(925 views)
Shortcut
|
Question One - How long did the 48fps look sped up?
Never.
Question Two - How would you describe the look of 48fps?
Stage theatre.
Question Three - As a result of the 48fps did you tear up, need to look away from the screen or have to take off 3d glasses more than regular?
No
Question Four - If yes to question three, how often did you have to do this?
N/A
Question Five - Based on the hobbit an unexpected journey, would you go and see the upcoming hobbit sequels in 48fps?
Yes.
|
|
|
Chainsaw Charlie
Bree
Jan 3 2013, 9:23pm
Post #43 of 44
(943 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not perfect, but I am impressed.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What I noticed the second time round was that the pictures weren't aligned properly - I don't know how to describe it, but you could see the outline of the picture on the left of the screen. Perhaps my dislike of HFR is down to both personal taste, and the cinema not using/showing it properly?
My personal taste is for old film grain. (I'm an archaic photographer who still shoots transparencies as well as film, and makes prints by hand in a darkroom.) Having said that, I'm also a lifelong fan of Viewmaster. I can only comment on my own personal viewing experience - I saw the HFR and was situated almost precisely in the middle of the cinema - ideal viewing perspective. My judgment: the image was perfect. There was no ghosting. It was incredibly sharp and detailed. I was not aware of an image being projected onto a screen. It often felt to me that I was sitting at the edge of a stage watching actors. They looked incredibly realistic. The CGI was often a different story - they didn't always look realistic, but the focus and registration was still very tight, and in the case of Azog, I didn't think him a CGI creature at all, he looked to me more like really good clay-animation model with very smooth natural movement.
It's possible that the cinema projector you saw the movie had bad registration (like a badly set Viewmaster slide) or terrible focus - or it's possible that the picture might have been affected by where you sit in the cinema, but that's purely my conjecture. I can't say. All I know is the print - errrr, file - image I saw looked incredible.
(This post was edited by Chainsaw Charlie on Jan 3 2013, 9:27pm)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Jan 3 2013, 9:37pm
Post #44 of 44
(997 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ghosting is a good way of describing the effect!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was sat in a middle row, in the middle - probably one of the best seats possible. So I don't think it was down to that. I assume it was down to the projection (there's no other reasonable explanation).
Hopefully by the next film, cinemas will be more experienced with HFR and the new technology.
It probably wasn't that obvious to the average movie-goer.
Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!
|
|
|
|
|
